The actual reality that Milgram et al uncovered at the three schools did not match Boaler's descriptive conclusion in her study. Now, it may be Stanford's policy that educational research is to be taken with a grain of salt and with particular attention to the fine print, however, in this case, Boaler's study had neither a grain of salt nor fine print. I am not going to try to hide my disappointment. I was hoping for something like the following from Boaler (with MPG's signature after hers)...
"I realize that the reader might infer from my conclusion and comments in my original study that the students at Railside were passing, or even doing very well, in these advanced classes. Heaven's no! Nothing could be further from the truth. Almost none of these students did well enough to even pass. Indeed, they were failing. But that wasn't what my study was about. My study was about showing that if we adopt an open and encouraging environment in mathematics education then we can achieve a semblance of success in mathematics. I realize that most readers are puzzled and will ask why we would want a semblance of success and not actual success, and more importantly, why I didn't point this detail out in my original study? This is because my study was not about mathematics, not in the common sense, it was about equality. But in order to achieve a semblance of equality we must establish a semblance of success in mathematics. Now, I don't have an answer to the question "Why does! equality, or even a semblance of equality, have anything to do with mathematics?" But if equality can be reduced to a semblance of equality based on a semblance of success in mathematics then my study shows a possible way of achieving that semblance."
On Jan 9, 2013, at 11:16 PM, GS Chandy <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Robert Hansen (RH) posted Jan 10, 2013 12:41 AM: >> >> Cool, I look forward to the release of raw data so >> that we can understand better the basis for Jo's >> remarks. Strange that it wasn't included in this >> release though. You would have thought that would >> have cleared everything up immediately. >> >> Bob Hansen >> > A thorough investigation was conducted. > > NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT OR FABRICATION OF RESULTS (BY JO BOALER). > > That is, the complaint made by 'a certain individual' was found to be utterly phony. > > To me it seems that the only real issue may be to inquire why such a phony complaint was ever made in the first place. > > And I do tend to wonder why you, Robert Hansen, keep supporting such a phony case. > > It seems that there is good reason for some serious introspection here (quite apart from any formal investigations). > > GSC > ("Still Shoveling Away!)